tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7079931756934339155.post4986667538163543223..comments2023-09-05T09:34:54.920-05:00Comments on BibleX: Theodicy and the New TestamentCharles Savellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11481608525537223764noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7079931756934339155.post-65968179334252935362009-11-23T21:28:11.341-06:002009-11-23T21:28:11.341-06:00Now that I read it again, more slowly, it does loo...Now that I read it again, more slowly, it does look like a convoluted series of phrases. On my first breeze through, I just thought the point was that since the message of the Gospel was that God didn't spare his own Son, the NT writers figured it would be obvious that the same God would allow us to suffer also.<br /><br />"<i>all general and traditional attributes of God are predicated of ‘the Father of Jesus Christ,’ that is, the Son of Man, who was abandoned and subjected to violence, injustice, and hatred–and who is one with his Father.</i>”<br /><br />That is pretty obtuse. If "general and traditional" applies to 1st century Jews, how could the statement be true? But what other 'tradition' did the NT writers have besides the Jewish one?<br /><br />My money's on bad writing and a slip by the editor. The logic of the passage as a whole seems to "<i>predicate</i>" what I said above. ;-)Bill Heromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05283809456471966882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7079931756934339155.post-14047669903264205272009-11-23T13:20:54.501-06:002009-11-23T13:20:54.501-06:00Hi Bill,
Thanks for stopping by.
I am not exactl...Hi Bill,<br /><br />Thanks for stopping by.<br /><br />I am not exactly sure what Dahl means with the sentence beginning with "Yet the more profound reason . . ." How would your paraphrase or summarize this point?Charles Savellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11481608525537223764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7079931756934339155.post-23915442239121956792009-11-22T08:33:45.314-06:002009-11-22T08:33:45.314-06:00Hey, Charles. Which phrase are you taking as reas...Hey, Charles. Which phrase are you taking as reason #2. If you mean the sentence beginning from "Yet", I don't understand your conclusion.<br /><br />I love the quote, by the way. Unless I'm the one who doesn't understand... (?)Bill Heromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05283809456471966882noreply@blogger.com